you can go to the bishop’s website usccb.org, on the link to Roman Missal, and look for the articles and bulletin inserts that answer the commonly asked questions, including this one. The short answer is that the version just replaced was translated in a dynamic equivalence mode, attempting to translate thought for thought rather than word for word, and with an agenda of making it “user friendly” in modern English usage. The new translation was done with an agenda of adherence to the literal meaning of the words in the Latin original, which means they are also closer to the literal meaning of the scriptures from which the prayers of the Mass are drawn.
It all depends on what one means by “more accurate.” The older translation was based on, as previously noted, the notion of dynamic equivalence. They translated what the Latin meant/conveyed and put it into “regular” English. The new translation translates essentially literally and uses more Latin grammar than English grammar. Try putting the new translation into Microsoft Word and you’ll get a whole lot of green underlining, lol.
I would agree with most of what you say but I doubt if this is “over.” English (as other modern languages) changes its meanings often. 2011 English is different than 1911 English (or even 1961 English) and words are understood differently. The various handmissals had some differences, though probably not that noticeable at those times since most didn’t actually respond in English prior to Vatican II. They only read them, big difference. Also, look at all the English Bibles out there, each one claiming to be the most accurate translation. And many of the Bible translations never made it to publishing. Some even make a claim they are better than the originals. How can that be?
As I understand it, the American English re-translation has the most changes. It was explained to me that in the 60’s it was “simplified” for the (dumb) Americans.
The only dumb ones are the ones who thought “simplifying” it was a good idea.
I was under the (factual) assumption that at that time, and up until the early 90s or so, American public schools were the best in the world. So to say that it was because of “dumb” Americans is an extension of a stereotype that is true today, but was not back then, and I think it is unfair.
Any vernacular would have been “simplifying” it for anyone not Latin-scholared, wouldn’t it?
I agree it’s certainly not “over” if the issue were translation. As you rightly point out language changes. That, of course, was one of the great reasons to use Latin: it was dead (no native or day-to-day speakers) so its meaning was fixed.
Because the people doing the original translation didn’t like what it said. That’s basically it.
It could very well be politics. But it could also be concern that using any of the old translations such as those in handmissals and those which the CoE uses might infringe on copyrights. And what are copyrights good for, 27 years, 37 years? Any coincidence? I think we discussed this on another thread a little while back.
As a child who attended school through the 70s and 80s and met many foreign students, our schools were never that good - especially in the South.
No, the American translation had many more changes than the English and Irish. I attended a lecture by a priest that worked on all of this for the USCCB.
